Helga Law Journal

Ukioqatigiit
Ataaseq assigiiaat ilaat

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 147

Helga Law Journal - 01.01.2021, Qupperneq 147
Helga Law Journal Vol. 1, 2021 152 International Legal Research Group 153 than not the declarations have been responded too and subsequent changes made.110 3.3 How did the ECHR Change the UK Legal System in Terms of the Right to Protest? The seemingly checkered track record of the UK courts of protecting human rights is also apparent in the right to protest. The right to engage in public protest has not historically been recognised in British law. In Duncan v Jones, Lord Hewart stated that “English law does not recognize any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes.”111 Therefore, the introduction of the ECHR and the HRA has provided a more recognizable right to protest in the form of the combination of Articles 10 and 11 in British law. Article 10 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, “the right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”112 In addition, Article 11 guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association with others. However, both of these rights are not absolute, the exercise of both these rights may be subject to restrictions “as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.”113 Any interference with either of these rights must also be proportionate. The three-part proportionality test set out by the ECtHR seeks to establish: (i) whether the legislative objective is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right; (ii) whether the measures designed to meet the legislative objective are rationally connected to it; and (iii) whether the means used to impair the right or freedom are no more than is necessary to accomplish the objective.114 The third part of the test articulated in De Freitas protects the right to protest by ensuring that any policy that restricts either the right to expression or the right to peaceful assembly cannot be draconian and must be measured. There is a positive obligation on the state to ensure that people can engage in lawful peaceful protest. In Arzte fur das Leben v Austria, the ECtHR noted that “Article 11 sometimes requires positive measures to be taken even in the sphere of relations between individuals.”115 Meanwhile, there is the negative obligation on the state, which establishes “the right not to be prevented or restricted by the state from meeting and associating with others to pursue particular aims, except 110 Alice Donald, Jane Gordon and Philip Leach, The UK and the European Court of Human Rights Equality and Human Rights Commission, Research Report 83. 111 Duncan v Jones [1936] 1.K.B. 218, 222. 112 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10, section 1. 113 ibid, section 2. 114 For an application of the proportionality test see De Freitas v The Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing and Others [1999] 1 AC 69, 80. 115 Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria no. 10126/82, ECHR 1988 [32-33]. to the extent allowed by Article 11(2).”116 Before the enactment of the HRA, the protection of fundamental rights of British individuals often (albeit, not always117) relied on the Wednesbury test of reasonableness. Lord Greene stated that a decision is unreasonable when it is “so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.118” The Wednesbury test that resulted was a strong indication of judicial restraint in ruling against authorities.119 Nonetheless, the British courts did recognize the importance of protecting human life and liberty by applying the ‘anxious scrutiny’ test, displayed in Bugdaycay, Lord Bridge states “the court must…be entitled to subject an administrative decision to more rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines.”120 The ‘anxious scrutiny’ test, although milder than the Wednesbury test, was ultimately dismissed by the ECtHR in Smith and Grady v The United Kingdom and was described by the ECtHR as “still effectively excluding any consideration of whether the national security and public order aims pursued struck a balance with the interference with rights.”121 The introduction of the Human Rights Act, which allows individuals to rely on the ECHR in domestic courts led to the British Courts embracing the tests of proportionality, used by the ECtHR in assessing human rights claims. 3.3.1 Must the Courts Follow ECtHR Decisions? The issue of whether the domestic courts must follow ECtHR decisions has been thoroughly discussed by the British Courts since the inception of the Human Rights Act. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act subsection 1(a) provides that “a court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Courts of Human Rights.”122 The key words 116 Aldemir v Turkey, no 32124/02, ECHR 2009 [41], and Human Rights Joint Committee, Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to policing protest (Seventh Report, 2009) HL 45/HC 328 [17]-[18]. Retrieved on 01 July 2018 from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/4702.htm. 117 Daniel Wei Wang, ‘From Wednesbury Unreasonableness to Accountability for Reasonableness’ [2017] 76(3) Cambridge Law Journal 642, and Michael Fordham, ‘Wednesbury’ [2007] 12(4) Judicial Review 266. 118 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223, 229. 119 “In Wednesbury… the licence [of a cinema operator] included a condition that no child under 15 could be admitted, whether accompanied by an adult or not. This decision was taken having regard to the well-being and moral health of children likely to visit the cinema. The local licensing authority had a wide discretion in relation to licences and could impose ‘such conditions as the authority [thought] fit.”’ Justin Leslie and Gavin McLeon, ‘Judicial review: Wednesbury unreasonableness’ (Westlaw Insight, 13 March 2015) [2]-[3]. 120 Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] A.C. 514, 531. 121 Smith and Grady v United Kingdom [1999] 29 EHRR 493. 122 Human Rights Act 1998 section 2(1).
Qupperneq 1
Qupperneq 2
Qupperneq 3
Qupperneq 4
Qupperneq 5
Qupperneq 6
Qupperneq 7
Qupperneq 8
Qupperneq 9
Qupperneq 10
Qupperneq 11
Qupperneq 12
Qupperneq 13
Qupperneq 14
Qupperneq 15
Qupperneq 16
Qupperneq 17
Qupperneq 18
Qupperneq 19
Qupperneq 20
Qupperneq 21
Qupperneq 22
Qupperneq 23
Qupperneq 24
Qupperneq 25
Qupperneq 26
Qupperneq 27
Qupperneq 28
Qupperneq 29
Qupperneq 30
Qupperneq 31
Qupperneq 32
Qupperneq 33
Qupperneq 34
Qupperneq 35
Qupperneq 36
Qupperneq 37
Qupperneq 38
Qupperneq 39
Qupperneq 40
Qupperneq 41
Qupperneq 42
Qupperneq 43
Qupperneq 44
Qupperneq 45
Qupperneq 46
Qupperneq 47
Qupperneq 48
Qupperneq 49
Qupperneq 50
Qupperneq 51
Qupperneq 52
Qupperneq 53
Qupperneq 54
Qupperneq 55
Qupperneq 56
Qupperneq 57
Qupperneq 58
Qupperneq 59
Qupperneq 60
Qupperneq 61
Qupperneq 62
Qupperneq 63
Qupperneq 64
Qupperneq 65
Qupperneq 66
Qupperneq 67
Qupperneq 68
Qupperneq 69
Qupperneq 70
Qupperneq 71
Qupperneq 72
Qupperneq 73
Qupperneq 74
Qupperneq 75
Qupperneq 76
Qupperneq 77
Qupperneq 78
Qupperneq 79
Qupperneq 80
Qupperneq 81
Qupperneq 82
Qupperneq 83
Qupperneq 84
Qupperneq 85
Qupperneq 86
Qupperneq 87
Qupperneq 88
Qupperneq 89
Qupperneq 90
Qupperneq 91
Qupperneq 92
Qupperneq 93
Qupperneq 94
Qupperneq 95
Qupperneq 96
Qupperneq 97
Qupperneq 98
Qupperneq 99
Qupperneq 100
Qupperneq 101
Qupperneq 102
Qupperneq 103
Qupperneq 104
Qupperneq 105
Qupperneq 106
Qupperneq 107
Qupperneq 108
Qupperneq 109
Qupperneq 110
Qupperneq 111
Qupperneq 112
Qupperneq 113
Qupperneq 114
Qupperneq 115
Qupperneq 116
Qupperneq 117
Qupperneq 118
Qupperneq 119
Qupperneq 120
Qupperneq 121
Qupperneq 122
Qupperneq 123
Qupperneq 124
Qupperneq 125
Qupperneq 126
Qupperneq 127
Qupperneq 128
Qupperneq 129
Qupperneq 130
Qupperneq 131
Qupperneq 132
Qupperneq 133
Qupperneq 134
Qupperneq 135
Qupperneq 136
Qupperneq 137
Qupperneq 138
Qupperneq 139
Qupperneq 140
Qupperneq 141
Qupperneq 142
Qupperneq 143
Qupperneq 144
Qupperneq 145
Qupperneq 146
Qupperneq 147
Qupperneq 148
Qupperneq 149
Qupperneq 150
Qupperneq 151
Qupperneq 152
Qupperneq 153
Qupperneq 154
Qupperneq 155
Qupperneq 156
Qupperneq 157
Qupperneq 158
Qupperneq 159
Qupperneq 160
Qupperneq 161
Qupperneq 162
Qupperneq 163
Qupperneq 164
Qupperneq 165
Qupperneq 166
Qupperneq 167
Qupperneq 168
Qupperneq 169
Qupperneq 170
Qupperneq 171
Qupperneq 172
Qupperneq 173
Qupperneq 174
Qupperneq 175
Qupperneq 176
Qupperneq 177
Qupperneq 178
Qupperneq 179
Qupperneq 180
Qupperneq 181
Qupperneq 182
Qupperneq 183
Qupperneq 184
Qupperneq 185
Qupperneq 186
Qupperneq 187
Qupperneq 188
Qupperneq 189
Qupperneq 190
Qupperneq 191
Qupperneq 192
Qupperneq 193
Qupperneq 194
Qupperneq 195
Qupperneq 196
Qupperneq 197
Qupperneq 198
Qupperneq 199
Qupperneq 200
Qupperneq 201
Qupperneq 202
Qupperneq 203
Qupperneq 204
Qupperneq 205
Qupperneq 206
Qupperneq 207
Qupperneq 208
Qupperneq 209
Qupperneq 210
Qupperneq 211
Qupperneq 212
Qupperneq 213
Qupperneq 214
Qupperneq 215
Qupperneq 216
Qupperneq 217
Qupperneq 218
Qupperneq 219
Qupperneq 220
Qupperneq 221
Qupperneq 222
Qupperneq 223
Qupperneq 224

x

Helga Law Journal

Direct Links

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Helga Law Journal
https://timarit.is/publication/1677

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.